list-emails

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no mention of auth requirements, pagination/ordering semantics, whether it marks messages as read, or rate limits. 'Most recent' hints at ordering but is not explicit about sort direction or fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains no filler. It is efficient, though brevity here comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two completely undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to know how results are ordered, how many are returned, or what side effects listing may have on message state.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds essentially no parameter meaning. 'IMAP mailbox' weakly implies the mailbox parameter, but the limit parameter (default 20, max 100) and its effect on the result set are never mentioned, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Lists) and resource (emails) with a scope qualifier ('most recent') and the source system (IMAP mailbox). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like search-emails or read-email, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search-emails (filtered retrieval) or read-email (single message body). The implied usage is only that it returns recent messages, with no exclusions or conditions stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.